Botany Bay land grab for expanded container wharves

Page Tools

Sydney Ports' $580 million proposal to reclaim a large area of Botany Bay for use as container wharves is "clearly" the best way to increase the capacity and revenue of NSW container ports, according to a new report.

The controversial plan, which would fill in 57 hectares of the bay, equivalent to 80 rugby fields, is needed for a projected 5 per cent annual growth in Sydney's container traffic, according to Sydney Ports.

Critics say it is environmentally unsound, would increase road traffic and ignores the possibility of moving containers to other NSW ports.

A commission of inquiry into the proposal stalled 13 weeks ago, with the Government amending its terms of reference to consider "any potentially feasible alternatives at Port Botany".

That amendment excluded looking at expanding operations at Newcastle or Port Kembla, despite the interim recommendation of a NSW upper house inquiry, which called for "the identification and rigorous evaluation of all viable alternatives".

AdvertisementAdvertisement

PricewaterhouseCoopers and consultants GHD examined 11 options within Botany Bay on behalf of Sydney Ports. The resulting report released yesterday, concluded that the Ports plan was "clearly ... the preferred alternative".

It provided "significantly more capacity" and "rental revenue" than an option backed by P&O, one of the stevedores that use the Botany Bay facilities, but whose current wharf is far from the proposed expansion.

P&O's plan would have added wharves to both the main stevedores' existing operations.

The report said the Sydney Ports plan would help shifting containers from trucks onto rail and lessen noise, while the P&O option would require an expensive relocation of the bulk liquids wharf.

"We've had a fair and thorough assessment by experts of international repute," the Sydney Ports chief executive, Greg Martin, said. He was confident the commission would recommend that the expansion be approved. "We believe we've answered all the concerns," he said.

But the amended environmental impact statement shows the expansion would create 1880 more "truck trips" a day by 2021 and double the numbers of trucks in the morning peak hour on Foreshore and Botany roads.

It said larger containers will be carried on trucks in larger numbers, despite the shift to rail.

Green MP Ian Cohen, who sat on the upper house inquiry, said the Sydney Ports plan would have "terrible noise impacts" on residents, while proposed dredging of the bay floor could "accelerate the release of a toxic chemical plume" spreading from the nearby Orica plant.

He also feared for the future of the environmentally sensitive but degraded Penrhyn Estuary.

"There are alternatives ... that have much less environmental impact and I believe the Government should explain why it has not at least considered these options, including focusing on Port Kembla and Newcastle as alternative sites for ports expansion," he said.

The Mayor of Botany Bay, Ron Hoenig, called for a "whole of state" strategy, instead of concentrating on Sydney Ports' facilities in Botany Bay and Port Jackson. Last month his council passed a motion stating its "total opposition" to the expansion plans, for "social, transport and environmental" reasons.

The federal Labor candidate for Kingsford Smith, Peter Garrett, declined to comment because he had not read the report.

The report and the amended environmental impact statement are on display for public comment until next month and will be sent to the commissioner before hearings resume.